thief

Thief here... I'm a toolmaker. In my work it needed to figure the rotation of the material as compared to the surface. On a lathe, the workpiece rotates as the tool moves down the length. ( a lathe makes things round) If the work spins too fast the tool bit will heat up and fail. If the work is turned too slow.... the boss will heat up. Cutting speed is written in feet per minute. I must do the numbers to know rpm (rounds per minute). I must use pi, for the calculations. For example A 6 inch diameter will have approximately 18 inches circumference. Circumference times, rounds per minute, equals feet per minute. Don't forget to convert inches to feet as you go.

Thief here... Correct to say three points define a plane. Three points also define the boundaries (area) of a triangle. Four points for rectangular items,five for pentagrams,etc,etc, These are plane geometries...still 2d. A point, above or below the plane, is needed for 3d. Observation of 2d plane geometry would be difficult, within the confines of the plane.

Thief here... Just questions.... Is it not true...that a some extent...numbers fail? Are there not equations for which there is standing bounty for the solutions? The universe, is often described as expanding from one point. If that be true...then how can that point be 'singular'? If the singularity is truly singular...then there can be no secondary point. Without the secondary...no height, no width, no length, no time. Without dimensions....no calculations. The void is not truly a void, if there is geometry. Last night I watched a science program aimed about extreme cold. Without heat...matter takes a new scheme of things. Does the singularity have any thermal 'dimension' in accepted constructs?

Thief here... I voted yes, but I do so for science, for cause and effect.

Thief here... For a moment or two...think like an artist. On a flat surface...any number of points, any number of angles, any number of contours, let your imagination go as far as you can. All of the geometry is "plane". The circle is unusual, as it can be designated in size by the length of one line from center point to boundary (radius), or one line through center (diameter). Angles are a study almost to themselves (trigonometry), but without that point above or below the plane, all that you see is flat 2d. With the addition of any one point above or below the plane, 3d takes hold. Circles becomes cones...or spheres. Circles can also become cylinders. Movement is noted when the position of a figure, is not congruent to the position of another figure. That is to say, the measure between one position is not fixed to the position of a reference, and periodic measuring will note increase or decrease of distance.(time)(4d) High velocity equations indicate distortion to simple geometry.(physically)

Thief here... Plane geometry lacks height. The first point has no size. The second point designates length only, and that length is terminal. A third point cannot add height. A fourth point is required for height...but may not be in the same plane as the first three. The sphere or a circle can be dimensioned by two points ( one length ), and this may be where confusion steps in. Movement can be noted only when any one line (a to b ) is measured at some different length, at various time.

Thief here... In previous post, I took away anything that had a number on it. I was trying to express the singularity. The discussion quickly reverted to motion equations. Then someone mentioned aether. True enough, the notion of aether has faded into disbelief, but allow me to bring it up in a different view. The singularity must have existed. Reversing all motion would bring us to that one point. But what if that one point need not be solitary? Multiply the point into infinity. Simply don't allow movement. Could aether be described as a universe pending a spark?

Thief here.... I'm a toolmaker. I deal hands on with '3d' all day. One point has no size, or form and is only a location device. A second point is required, as location is relative. A third point does not demonstrate height. Triangles, squares, circles,etc, etc,etc...are plane geometries and have no height. Spheres, cubes, cones, etc,etc,etc, all have points above or below a given plane. Counting you points ..one, two, three, does not describe geometry as 3d. Previous posts didn't appear to show this. The fourth dimension is movement.

Thief here... I had a similar discussion elsewhere, and it appears that aging does not halt for the traveler. Should I leave the Earth on a 400 year journey, I would be somewhat older in body upon my return. Perhaps not a great amount older, but some aging will occur. As for travel resulting a return to a previous year, a time before my departure, I don't think that can happen. I cannot return and find you to be younger. Travel into the past? I'm not so sure.

Thief here... My previous post may have been a bit swayed. Referring to the impetus as "God" is something I do readily. I will refrain doing so for the rest of this topic, as it will surely distract. The topic question is HOW an object achieves motion. I wanted to examine motion in it's most reduced form. I quickly reduced all motion to one point, one 'object'. Then stripped that object of all geometry. Any introduction of any secondary point, induces infinity as another point can always be squeezed in between any two given points. Geometry destroyed, space/time relations disappear. All movement...gone. One point, without size, is no longer the location device it was intended to be. The void 'becomes' perfect, all of nothing in it's perfection of uniformity. All motion we are now experiencing, has been with the universe from the event of the big bang. The question struck me in this way...and I thought we were discussing the 'creation of motion'. Apparently not. We seem to be discussing action/reaction, and more localized events. Which direction are we going?

Thief here....I'm new around here..please overlook my typing After 50+ replies I don't see a sure perspective. I'm an old guy...and I try to keep up on things, but it looks like someone tweaked my universe when I wasn't looking. Last I heard the singularity had no geometry at all, no height, no length, no width, and no movement. Calculations, especially those including size, may not be appropriate. For the singularity to be truly single, no secondary point may be allowed. Without a secondary point, movement is not possible. This is the paradox of the big bang. Prior to the Bang, the universe could not be described by any term or number. It might be called 'void', as long as you don't use the word. 'Not even One Word' The void was uniform...empty...perfect. The universe could thought of as aberration, a perversion of the perfect. For the bang to go off...geometry and the reaction ideas must work. But no one seems to notice...the singularity isn't moving. You need two points for that. No axial spin without an axis. An axis implies equilateral plane, which implies infinite points. The singularity is not single with all of that going on. If an explosion takes place the result would be no more than an ever expanding hollow shock wave. Perfect in geometry. Forever dissipating. Without rotation, the orbits, spirals, and axial rotation, matter, would never gel. I believe in cause and effect. Stuck with the evidence of rotation and orbit, I must confess the singularity had some action applied to it...before it was allowed to go bang. No calculation can be applied...no numbers. No rhetoric can be used...no terms. The rotation is ponderous in quantity. For now...for lack of anything else...I call the impetus...God.